2008年-世界发展银行全球_Serbia___Decentralization_and_Local_Service_Delivery_130页_9mb

Summary of "Decentralization and Local Service Delivery" in Serbia

Core Content

This document provides an analysis of the decentralization process in Serbia, focusing on its implications for macroeconomic management, fiscal frameworks, and the delivery of public services in key sectors such as health, education, and social welfare. It outlines the challenges and opportunities associated with decentralization and emphasizes the need for coordinated reforms and capacity building.

Main Points

1. Decentralization Overview

• Public Service Delivery: Public services such as education, health, and local administration are increasingly delivered at the local level, but decision-making remains highly centralized.
• Municipal Structure: The basic unit of local government in Serbia is the municipality, which includes both urban and rural areas. Belgrade and three other cities (Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac) have special status. Two autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) and Central Serbia are also mentioned.
• Decentralization Trends: There is a growing trend to transfer responsibilities to local governments and service providers. This is most advanced in the health sector, with discussions ongoing in education and social protection.

2. Macroeconomic Issues in Decentralization

• Fiscal Performance: Serbia has experienced three distinct fiscal periods since 2001: rapid expansion (2001–2003), fiscal adjustment (2003–2005), and a reversal of adjustment (2005–2006).
• Sub-National Fiscal Balance: Sub-national governments have generally remained in fiscal balance, which is an important indicator of institutional effectiveness, though it may also suggest over-funding.
• Debt Management: The new Public Debt Law sets ceilings for municipal borrowing, but these constraints are not yet binding. Reluctance of commercial banks to lend and lack of viable projects are major barriers to municipal borrowing.
• Importance of Coordination: The Republic Government should consider the fiscal position of sub-national governments in macroeconomic planning as their resources are expected to increase.

3. Fiscal Framework and Financing Issues

• Municipal Responsibilities: Municipalities are responsible for infrastructure, maintenance, and some public services, while other services (e.g., education, health) are funded by the central government.
• New Local Government Finance Law: Enacted in January 2007, this law improved transparency and predictability in revenue transfers and provided a more equitable distribution of funds.
• Revenue Disparities: Municipalities in wealthier cities (e.g., Belgrade, Novi Sad) have significantly higher per capita revenues, which may be used to subsidize public enterprises.
• Central Government Transfers: Transfers to Vojvodina have increased under the new constitution, but central government responsibilities have not been reduced accordingly.

4. Local Government Structure and Administration

• Need for Reform: Municipal administration needs reform to support effective decentralization. This includes improving the functioning of municipal structures and the working conditions of officials.
• Employment Conditions: Local officials are still governed by outdated labor laws. There is a need to align local employment status with the new civil service wage system.
• Depoliticization of Employment: Senior officials should be appointed based on merit rather than political affiliation. This includes allowing department heads to retain status beyond mayoral terms.
• Capacity Building: A demand-driven approach is recommended for capacity building. Local governments should be supported in defining their needs and developing their own training programs.

5. Decentralization in Health

• Health Sector Reforms: The Health Care Law of 2006 outlines the decentralization of health services. Hospitals are transferred to provincial authorities, while primary health care institutions are transferred to municipalities.
• Payment Reforms: The shift from input-based financing to capitation and case-based payments is being implemented. This aims to improve efficiency and resource management.
• Challenges: The transition to new payment systems requires monitoring and evaluation. There is a need for continuous training of providers and for a rigorous evaluation of the impact of these reforms.
• Pilot Study: A pilot study is recommended to assess the cost and efficiency impact of moving to capitation payments in PHC centers and case-based payments in hospitals.
• Resource Allocation: There are concerns about the uneven distribution of tertiary care facilities, with most concentrated in Belgrade.

6. Education and Decentralization

• Current Status: Education reforms are at an early stage. Serbia is struggling to provide quality education and equip students with the necessary skills for the labor market.
• PISA Results: Serbian students ranked 33rd in mathematics, 36th in reading, and 34th in science out of 40 countries. No other European country scored below Serbia.
• Inefficiency in Education: The number of teachers has increased while student numbers have decreased, leading to a higher pupil-teacher ratio and inefficient resource allocation.
• Small Schools: Serbia has a large number of small schools, with many having fewer than 200 students. This leads to significant variations in per-student resource allocation.
• Need for Decentralization: Decentralization is seen as a potential solution to improve service delivery and address inefficiencies in the education system.

Key Information

• Currency: Serbian Dinar (RSD), with 1 US$ = 51.8 RSD.

• Metric System: Used for weights and measures.

• Key Acronyms:

  • ALOS: Average Length of Stay
  • MOH: Ministry of Health
  • CSWs: Centers for Social Work
  • MoLESP: Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Policy
  • DFID: Department for International Development
  • MOP: Material Support for Low-income Families
  • PPP$: Purchasing Power Parity
  • LSG: Local Self Governments
  • IPH: Institute for Public Health
  • SWM: Sewage and Water Management
  • SIF: Social Innovation Fund
  • NIP: National Investment Plan

• Report Team:

  • Vice President: Shigeo Katsu
  • Country Director: Orsalia Kalantzopoulos
  • Sector Director: Cheryl Gray
  • Sector Manager: Bernard Funck
  • Task Leader: Mathew Verghis

• Peer Reviewers:

  • Deborah Wetzel
  • Kai Kaiser
  • Dena Ringold
  • Markus Goldstein

• Document Purpose: To provide insights and recommendations for better managing the decentralization process in Serbia and improving service delivery in health, education, and social welfare.

Conclusion

The document emphasizes that successful decentralization requires coordination with sector reforms, sound fiscal management, and capacity building. It highlights the importance of aligning local employment structures with the new civil service system and improving the efficiency of public service delivery through better resource allocation and management. The report also calls for careful monitoring of the impact of payment reforms in health and education, as well as the need to address disparities in funding and service delivery across municipalities.